During Monday of last week a San Bernardino County Judge struck down rules that were meant to regulate a technique mining companies use to suction gravel in waterways in order to search for gold. The method is known as suction dredge mining and the Western Mining Alliance has been fighting against the ban since it was signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2009. Fortunately, the court’s decision is a set back for environmentalists who allege the mining method is a threat to fish and can pollute waterways with mercury.

I looked into the allegation about suction dredge mining pollution and discovered something very interesting. Earlier this month, hearings were held by the US Geological Survey about this very issue. The Western Mining Alliance alleges that the USGS admitted that a 2011 study the agency cited that alleged suction dredging increased mercury in streams was authored by a Dr. Charles Alpers. Dr. Alpers is not only a member of but also serves on the Board of Advisers of The Sierra Fund. The WMA accused Dr. Alpers of withholding five years of data stemming from an FOIA request and, as it turns out, Alpers’ group lobbied for a prohibition on suction dredging equipment. Despite this controversy, the USGS concluded there was no conflict of interest.

It is good that the California court struck down the suction dredge rules. However, I am sure it is far from over. However, the indescrepancies pointed out by the WMA about the study the US Geological Survey relied on during hearings on suction dredge mining as well as the associations the manuscript’s author goes to show that the deck would have been stacked against miners if they had not won. This is one of many instances where environmentalists have helped to politicize science to achieve their ends.